Exposurehttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/9687/all
enCoast Guard Proposal to Allow Barges to Haul Fracking Wastewater Draws Fire From Environmentalistshttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/11/09/coast-guard-plans-allow-fracking-wastewater-shipment-barge-under-fire
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/barge_0.jpg?itok=Kv5Etwsz" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Coast Guard released plans that would allow wastewater from shale gas to be shipped via barge in the nation’s rivers and waterways on October 30 — and those rules have kicked up a storm of controversy. The proposal is drawing fire from locals and environmentalists along the Ohio and Mississippi rivers who say the Coast Guard failed to examine the environmental impacts of a spill and is only giving the public 30 days to comment on the plan.<br /><br />
Three million <a href="http://www.ohioriverfdn.org/education/ohio_river_facts/">people</a> get their water from the Ohio River, and further downstream, <a href="http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/habitats/riverslakes/explore/explore-the-mississippi-river-think-you-know-the-river.xml">millions more</a> rely on drinking water from the Mississippi. If the Coast Guard's <a href="http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg521/docs/CG-ENG.ProposedPolicy.ShaleGasWasteWater.pdf">proposed policy</a> is approved, barges carrying <a href="http://publicsource.org/investigations/shale-drillers-eager-move-wastewater-barges">10,000 barrels</a> of fracking wastewater would float downstream from northern Appalachia to Ohio, Texas and Louisiana.</p>
<p>Environmentalists say a spill could be disastrous, because the wastewater would contaminate drinking water and the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/fracking-water-its-just-s_b_4045936.html">complicated brew</a> of contaminants in fracking waste, which include corrosive salts and radioactive materials, would be nearly impossible to clean up.<br /><br />
The billions of gallons of wastewater from fracking represent one of the biggest bottlenecks for the shale gas industry.<br /><br />
States atop the Marcellus shale are brimming with the stuff. Traditionally, oil and gas wastewater is disposed by <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/injection-wells-the-poison-beneath-us">pumping it underground</a> using wastewater disposal wells, but the underground geology of northeastern states like <a href="http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/tag/deep-injection-well/">Pennsylvania</a> makes this far more difficult than in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/us/wastewater-disposal-wells-proliferate-along-with-fracking.html">states like Texas</a>, and Ohio has suffered a spate of earthquakes that federal researchers concluded were linked to these wastewater wells. The volumes of water used by drillers for the current shale gas boom are unprecedented.</p>
<!--break-->
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">During </span><a href="http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/fracking/" style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">fracking</a><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">, millions of gallons of water are mixed with chemicals and sand and blasted into underground shale rock layers to shatter the rock and release minute pockets of trapped natural gas and other fossil fuels like propane or oil. The precise chemicals used in any given well can vary widely, and drillers are not required to tell the public what’s in the specific mix — plus the water picks up </span><a href="http://fcir.org/2013/04/24/florida-fracking-bills-moving-through-legislature/" style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">corrosive salts</a><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">, naturally occurring radioactive materials and reactive metals like </span><a href="http://www.marcellus-shale.us/drilling_wastewater.htm" style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">strontium and barium</a><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">.</span><br /><br />
After wastewater returns to the surface from a fracked well, it is collected in <a href="http://www.marcellus-shale.us/impoundments.htm">large open pits</a> or in tanks. In Pennsylvania, a single wastewater lagoon, the Jon Day Impoundment outside Washington, <span class="caps">PA</span>, can hold 13 to 15 million gallons of fracking wastewater. In West Virginia, another pit can hold 18.2 million gallons.<br /><br />
All that water has to go somewhere; state regulations don’t allow it to sit there forever.<a href="http://www.earthworksaction.org/media/detail/new_fracking_report_finds_high_levels_of_water_consumption_and_waste_genera#.Unx3ficuedw"> Less than ten percent</a> of water used in fracking is ultimately “recycled,” or filtered and used to frack another gas well, a recent report from San Jose State University concluded. Some of the water injected remains underground in the shale rock itself, but the rest of it flows back to the surface and must be disposed.<br /><br />
The Coast Guard’s plan would allow companies to ship this wastewater via barge to disposal sites downstream.<br /><br />
“Waterways are the least costly way of transporting it,” James McCarville, executive director of the Port of Pittsburgh Commission, which advocates for waterway transport, <a href="http://publicsource.org/investigations/us-coast-guard-publishes-proposed-policy-moving-frack-wastewater-barge">told PublicSource</a>. “We look forward to being able to get the trucks off the highways as quickly as possible.”<br /><br />
Barges have a stronger safety record than trucks or trains, proponents argue.<br /><br />
Barge companies had one spill of 1,000 gallons or more for every 39,404 ton-miles, a Texas Transportation Institute report found in 2012. Trucks average one such spill per 8,555 ton-miles and on average, trains had one spill every 58,591 ton-miles.<br /><br />
But opponents say there’s a crucial difference: trucks and trains usually spill onto land, but a barge would send wastewater directly into the river.<br /><br />
“If and when there’s a spill, that can’t be cleaned up,” <a href="http://publicsource.org/investigations/us-coast-guard-publishes-proposed-policy-moving-frack-wastewater-barge">said</a> Benjamin Stout, a biology professor at Wheeling Jesuit University, about 60 miles southwest of Pittsburgh. “That means it’s going to be in the drinking-water supply of millions of people.”<br /><br />
When barges get into accidents, the leaks tend to be much larger than a tanker truck spill. On January 27,<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/02/05/shale-industry-moves-ship-fracking-waste-barge-threatens-drinking-water-supplies"> two barges crashed</a> into a bridge on the Mississippi river, causing an oil spill from a ruptured fuel tank carrying 80,000 gallons of light sweet crude and leading to a partial shutdown of the lower Mississippi's shipping traffic and a backup of over 800 barges.<br /><br />
And with an oil spill, regulators have <a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16768492-barges-stuck-as-oil-spill-jams-mississippi-river">some tools</a> to stop the spill from spreading. Not so with fracking wastewater.<br /><br />
“Nobody has figured out what the safe thing is to do if fracking water gets in our drinking water,” Tom Hoffman, Western Pennsylvania director of the environmental group Clean Water Action, <a href="http://triblive.com/business/headlines/4988721-74/fracking-stephaich-barges#axzz2k0gNwgJr">told local reporters</a>.<br /><br />
Shippers acknowledge there is a difference between a tanker full of one chemical and a barge full of shale gas waste. “Gasoline is gasoline, chlorine is chlorine. You know what you're getting. But frackwater is going to be different company by company and well by well,” Peter Stephaich, chairman and <span class="caps">CEO</span> of Washington County-based Campbell Transportation Co, <a href="http://triblive.com/business/headlines/4988721-74/fracking-stephaich-barges#axzz2k0gNwgJr">told</a> the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.<br /><br />
The Coast Guard's proposal would require shippers to test each shipment, so they know what each barge holds. But the plan contains a key loophole — if a fracking formula is labeled a trade secret, it will not need to be disclosed. “[T]he identity of proprietary chemicals may be withheld from public release,” the Coast Guard’s policy states.<br /><br />
“All they have to do is say 'proprietary information' and they don’t have to do anything” to make information available to the public, Prof. Stout <a href="http://publicsource.org/investigations/us-coast-guard-publishes-proposed-policy-moving-frack-wastewater-barge">told PublicSource</a>, which has reported on the proposal in-depth.<br /><br />
Those living downstream from one major shipping company <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-usa-fracking-wastewater-idUSBRE93216L20130403">GreenHunter Water</a>, which has nearly completed a new terminal to ship shale wastewater by barge, remain nervous. City Councilwoman Gloria Delbrugge told local reporters she is not happy about the new plant in her town. GreenHunter Water is 1.2 miles upstream from the city of Wheeling's drinking water treatment plant.<br /><br />
“I won't be there to cut the ribbon for them,” Ms. Delbrugge <a href="http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/590847/GreenHunter-Set-To--Start-Work-on-Plant.html?nav=515">said</a> in mid-October. “I don't like them, I don't want them and I don't trust them.”<br /><br />
The Coast Guard’s policy would turn a <a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/map/server-test/uploads/meigscan-greenhunter-nepa-demand.pdf">blind eye to spills</a>, but it acknowledges some difficulties posed by radioactive materials in shale wastewater, focusing on the possible harm to barge workers.<br /><br />
Radium and uranium are present at low levels in fracking wastewater, but these elements are naturally attracted to barium and strontium — which just so happen to also be found in the briny waste. Barium and strontium tend to accumulate on metal surfaces — a problem so common that the oil and gas industry has given the flaky build-up a name: “pipe scale.” These scales of barium and strontium can make pipes so radioactive that they are no longer safe to handle. The same thing could happen, the Coast Guard plan suggests, to barges.<br /><br />
GreenHunter officials have said that the levels of radioactivity are extremely low.<br /><br />
It is true that the naturally occurring radioactive materials in a given gallon of frackwater are low. But if enough shale wasterwater flows past a certain point, the low levels of radioactivity can start to accumulate.<br /><br />
For example, a recent <a href="http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/07/pennsylvania-streams-contaminated-radioactive-water-fracking-research-finds/">Duke University study </a>tested riverbed soils downstream from one wastewater plant and measured radiation levels 200 times of those detected in water samples upstream. “The radioactivity levels we found in sediments near the outflow are above management regulations in the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> and would only be accepted at a licensed radioactive disposal facility,” said professor Robert B. Jackson said in a <a href="http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/news/radioactive-shale-gas-contaminants-found-at-wastewater-discharge-site">press release</a>.<br /><br />
These levels have caught the attention of Coast Guard officials. “The Coast Guard is concerned that, over time, sediment and deposits with radioisotopes may accumulate on the inside of the barge tank surface and may pose a health risk to personnel entering the tank,” the proposed plan says, adding that they plan to focus on how long workers will be exposed to radioactivity, and the levels likely to be found in the barge’s wastewater tanks. But nothing is said about what would happen to the radioactive materials in the event of spills.<br /><br />
With many complex questions left unanswered, critics say the Coast Guard has given the public and independent experts too little time to weigh in on its proposed policy.</p>
<p>“I’m a little disappointed to hear there’s only a 30-day public comment period,” Clean Water Action's Steve Hvozdovich <a href="http://publicsource.org/investigations/us-coast-guard-publishes-proposed-policy-moving-frack-wastewater-barge">said</a>. “Thirty days is not sufficient in my mind.”<br /><br />
Others say the problem is actually the amount of waste generated by the industry and that no matter how it’s transported, it remains a problem.<br /><br />
“Transporting drilling waste by truck leads to increased air pollution, risks accidents and spills, puts undue pressure on local roads and infrastructure,” Erika Staaf of PennEnvironment <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/coast-guard-seeks-comments-on-proposal-to-allow-barges-to-carry-shale-gas-wastewater/2013/11/05/b9e833fa-463b-11e3-95a9-3f15b5618ba8_story.html">told the Associated Press</a>, but “transporting this waste by barge in our nations rivers is unnecessarily risky.”</p>
<p>The public comment period ends November 29.</p>
<p>Comments can be filed in three ways: 1) Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov;">www.regulations.gov;</a> 2) Fax comments to 202-493-2251; or 3) Mail them to Docket Management Facility (M-30), <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. <span class="caps">SE</span>., Washington, <span class="caps">D.C.</span> 20590-0001. All comments must include the docket number, <span class="caps">USCG</span>-2013-0915.</p>
<p><span style="font-size:9px;">Photo Credit: <em><a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-121796419/stock-photo-picture-of-a-large-barge.html?src=EObCmiah10QHb9tb6ze-zQ-1-1">Picture of a Large Barge</a></em>, Via Shutterstock</span></p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7609';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7609"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7136">Coast Guard</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6879">Radioactive</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6074">fracking wastewater</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11832">barges</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11836">Ohio River</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7421">Mississippi River</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11834">spills</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9687">Exposure</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11831">radium</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13211">uranium</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14315">fracking flowback</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14316">fracking brine</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14317">corrosive salts</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8676">public comment</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6019">drinking water</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6232">Spill</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6322">Disaster</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14136">clean-up</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14318">impoundments</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14148">recycling</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6750">Disposal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14319">least costly</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14320">Port of Pittsburgh Commission</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14321">Benjamin Stout</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14322">Wheeling Jesuit University</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5006">oil spill</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6687">Clean Water Action</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14323">Tom Hoffman</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14324">U.S. Coast Guard</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14325">proprietary chemicals</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11833">GreenHunter Water</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14326">Gloria Delbrugge</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14327">barium</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14328">strontium</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14329">pipe scale</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14330">exposure risk</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7834">Duke University</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14331">sediments</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9711">Robert B. Jackson</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14332">barge tank</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14333">Steve Hvozdovich</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14334">PennEnvironment</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14335">Erika Staaf</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14336">truck</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14337">railroad</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14338">barging</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11384">waterways</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11447">rivers</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14339">lakes</a></div></div></div>Sat, 09 Nov 2013 19:44:42 +0000Sharon Kelly7609 at http://www.desmogblog.comCould Lead Paint Lawsuit Pave Way For Class Action Against Coal Industry?http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/08/12/could-lead-paint-lawsuit-pave-way-class-action-against-coal-industry
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/lawsuit.jpg?itok=ZQn8NL-l" width="200" height="130" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Coal industry executives ought to pay attention to the lead paint lawsuit currently happening in the California court system.</p>
<p>Recently, a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/03/lead-paint-lawsuit-california-tobacco-industry_n_3696533.html">lawsuit was filed against the makers of lead paint</a>, alleging that the industry <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/lead-paint-trial_n_3612546.html">knew about the toxicity of their product and yet still promoted</a> it as “safe” to the public. The industry has faced many lawsuits over their products in the past, most of which were unsuccessful for the victims, due to the fact that the industry was often up front about the dangers of their products, and they funded public studies to determine the health effects.</p>
<p>But things have changed in the American legal system, and attorneys are now taking a page out of the tobacco litigation playbook. By unearthing documents that detail the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/lead-paint-trial_n_3612546.html">lead paint industry’s attempted cover-up of the dangers</a>, they avoid the “buyer beware” caveat that the tobacco industry used for so long. </p>
<p>And just like the tobacco industry, lead paint manufacturers were specifically <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/03/lead-paint-lawsuit-california-tobacco-industry_n_3696533.html">targeting children with their ads</a>. The California lawsuit is making that a central part of the trial. Also reminiscent of the tobacco litigation, the suit was filed by cities and municipalities, not individual victims, greatly increasing the chance for success.</p>
<p>The coal industry should be paying very close attention to the progress of this litigation, as their activities could become the next target of skilled attorneys. For decades, the coal industry has been poisoning American citizens with their coal-mining, -burning and -dumping activities. Additionally, the dismal working conditions for miners has cost many families an unnecessary loss of life.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>The use of tobacco, and even the use of lead paint, were choices that consumers consciously made (in the case of lead paint however, it could have been the only option available.) Both were used by rich and poor alike, covering every socioeconomic facet of the country. The “choice” factor actually allowed the industry a break in litigation, by telling juries that consumers made the decision and must live with the consequences.</p>
<p>The coal industry does not necessarily have the luxury of using the “free choice” argument. While the argument could be made that coal miners or residents in areas with coal ash dumps or near power plants could simply move on to a new area or career, economic principles are often not in favor of a career change or relocation. Many residents cannot afford to move away or don’t possess the necessary <span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">skills</span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> or are too old to find work in another sector.</span></p>
<p>Removing the “choice” argument certainly makes it easier to try a case, but is there enough evidence on hand to even bring a case? The answer to that question is a little bit trickier.</p>
<p>Like any class action lawsuit, plaintiffs must be able to prove that the industry not only knew about the dangers of their product, but also were involved in a specific attempt to mislead or deceive the public. The bottom line is that they had to have been 100% aware of the dangers within their industry.</p>
<p>Any person with access to the Internet can find a <a href="http://www.academia.edu/285527/The_Polluting_of_a_Nation_Surface_Coal_Mining_In_America">plethora of peer-reviewed scientific studies</a> that extensively detail the dangers of coal burning and coal dumping. <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/83978:bush-epa-hid-data-on-coalash-risks-study-shows">Areas around coal plants and dumpsites</a> have abnormally <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Health_effects_of_coal">higher rates of cancers, breathing problems, and premature deaths. They also have shorter life expectancies and higher infant mortality rates.</a> Dangerous heavy metals like arsenic and mercury have been proven to be byproducts of the coal burning process, and dumpsites test well above the legal threshold for these toxic metals. </p>
<p>It would seem that this information would be enough for attorneys to go ahead and file suit. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Again, it all comes down to what the industry knew, how long they knew it, and what they did with that information. The studies mentioned above were either done by outside organizations or the federal government, not the industry. While it may be public knowledge, an attorney has to be able to prove that the industry was involved in some form of cover-up.</p>
<p>But that may not be as difficult as it sounds.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Corporate-Greed/Massey-Energy-Mine-Manager-Charged-in-Conspiracy-to-Hide-Dangerous-Conditions-from-Inspectors">Documents have already been uncovered</a> that show that managers at Massey Energy were well aware that the working conditions at Upper Big Branch mine were abysmal, and that it was only a matter of time before something horrible happened to their workers. They hid this information from workers, chose to do nothing about their internal warnings, and in April of 2010, 29 workers were killed in an explosion at the mine. These deaths could have easily been avoided had the company taken appropriate actions.</p>
<p>There is also <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/87841:the-coal-ash-industry-manipulated-epa-data">plenty of evidence that suggests</a> that the industry was permitted to manipulate <span class="caps">EPA</span> studies about the toxicity of coal ash, effectively deceiving the public. <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rperks/did_dominion_officials_lie_abo.html">Other reports show that the industry outright hid internal reports</a> about the dangers of coal ash. That alone could be enough to spark <a href="http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=530">discovery</a> for a possible suit against the industry.</p>
<p>What happens in the lead paint lawsuits will likely determine the feasibility of a lawsuit against the coal industry. We'll be watching closely in the months ahead. </p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7390';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7390"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5692">Industry</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13385">Lead Paint</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1251">tobacco</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/lawsuit">lawsuit</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10100">Legal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13386">Class Action</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8812">Upper Big Branch</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8301">Danger</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4406">coal ash</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9687">Exposure</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13387">dump</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/epa">EPA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6325">Study</a></div></div></div>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 19:18:31 +0000Farron Cousins7390 at http://www.desmogblog.comHouse Republicans Attempt To Block Black Lung Protection Fundinghttp://www.desmogblog.com/house-republicans-attempt-block-black-lung-protection-funding
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/black-lung.gif?itok=EQq4P9Jn" width="200" height="138" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>In what could possibly be a new low for one of the <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/09/most-anti-environment-congress-history">most anti-environment, pro-dirty energy industry</a> <a href="http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/new-report-details-the-most-anti-environment-house-in-the-history-of-congress">Congresses in history</a>, Republicans in the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> House of Representatives are attempting to <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/17/156908140/republican-lawmakers-seek-to-block-funding-on-black-lung-regulation">gut funding for measures</a> that would reduce the occurrence of black lung in mine workers. The funding cut was inserted into the 2013 appropriations bill that provides funding to the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services.<br /><br />
The <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/17/156908140/republican-lawmakers-seek-to-block-funding-on-black-lung-regulation">language inserted into the appropriations bill</a> reads:<br /> </p>
<blockquote>
<span class="caps">SEC</span>. 118. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to continue the development of or to promulgate, administer, enforce, or otherwise implement the Lowering Miners' Exposure to Coal Mine Dust, Including 20 Continuous Personal Dust Monitors regulation (Regulatory Identification Number 1219-<span class="caps">AB</span>64) being developed by the Mine Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor.<br />
</blockquote>
<p>Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee inserted the language into the bill. The Appropriations Committee is currently led by Republican Chairman Harold 'Hal' Rogers from Kentucky and, not surprisingly, his largest campaign financier during his 20+ years in office has been the mining industry. That <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&amp;cid=N00003473&amp;type=I">industry has pumped more than $379,000</a> into his campaigns over the years, according to Center for Responsive Politics data. <a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.org/view.php?searchvalue=hal+rogers&amp;com=&amp;can=&amp;zip=&amp;search=1&amp;type=search#view=connections">DirtyEnergyMoney.org shows Rep. Rogers receiving over $430,000</a> in polluter contributions since 1999, <a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.org/view.php?searchvalue=hal+rogers&amp;com=&amp;can=&amp;zip=&amp;search=1&amp;type=search#view=comparisons">well above the average</a> for members of Congress. The majority of the dirty money has come from the coal industry.</p>
<!--break-->
<p><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Hal Rogers Dirty Money.png" style="width: 550px; height: 558px; " /><br />
The new rule would prevent workers and the industry from monitoring the levels of coal dust that workers are exposed to. This could not come at a worse time, as recent studies show that <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/07/10/155981916/black-lung-rule-loopholes-leave-miners-vulnerable">diagnoses of black lung have been on the rise</a> in recent years. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/07/16/study-media-silent-as-gop-obstruction-threatens/187149">According to Media Matters for America</a>, a decade ago the rate of black lung among miners with more than 25 years of experience was only about 4%. Today, that number is close to 10% of long-term workers with more than 25 years on the job.<br /><br /><a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/07/16/study-media-silent-as-gop-obstruction-threatens/187149">Media Matters</a> also <a href="http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/07/08/9293/black-lung-surges-back-coal-country">echoed a report from iWatch News</a>, which detailed the ways in which the current monitoring system – the very system that House Republicans are attempting cut back even further – is designed in a way that allows the industry to game the system:<br /> </p>
<blockquote>
The disease's resurgence represents a failure to deliver on a 40-year-old pledge to miners in which few are blameless, an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and <span class="caps">NPR</span> has found. The system for monitoring dust levels is tailor-made for cheating, and mining companies haven't been shy about doing so. Meanwhile, regulators often have neglected to enforce even these porous rules. Again and again, attempts at reform have failed.<br /><br />
A Center analysis of databases maintained by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration found that miners have been breathing too much dust for years, but <span class="caps">MSHA</span> has issued relatively few violations and routinely allowed companies extra time to fix problems.<br /><br /><blockquote>
The <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&amp;dat=20010509&amp;id=uroeAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=_s8EAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=6600,2779982">mining industry for years</a> has been attempting to make it more difficult for workers to hold companies liable for diseases caused by exposure to coal dust. During the Bush Administration, the coal mining industry attempted to sue the government to repeal a law that made it easier for doctors to prove a diagnosis of black lung for lawsuits. Before that law, the mining companies were able to delay lawsuits for years by requiring plaintiffs to get as many medical opinions from different sources as the industry wanted.<br /><br />
In addition to the efforts by the industry, Republicans in Washington have also been trying to <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/10/19/2010-25249/lowering-miners-exposure-to-respirable-coal-mine-dust-including-continuous-personal-dust-monitors">reduce oversight and liability</a> with regards to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/07/16/study-media-silent-as-gop-obstruction-threatens/187149">preventing black lung</a>.<br /><br />
It is estimated that as many as <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/07/10/155981916/black-lung-rule-loopholes-leave-miners-vulnerable">70,000 miners</a>, since the 1970’s, have died from black lung, with an average of about <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&amp;dat=20010509&amp;id=uroeAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=_s8EAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=6600,2779982">1,500 miners dying</a> from the disease every year. The mining industry has already paid out roughly <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/07/10/155981916/black-lung-rule-loopholes-leave-miners-vulnerable">$45 billion to victims</a> and their families.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '6428';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=6428"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/lawsuit">lawsuit</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/republican">republican</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1106">Congress</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1399">Media Matters</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5648">Report</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6445">regulations</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6941">Death</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8969">Disease</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9685">Black Lung</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9686">Miner</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9687">Exposure</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9688">Dust</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9689">Fine</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9690">Civil</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9691">Harold Rogers</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9692">House Appropriations Committee</a></div></div></div>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 19:16:30 +0000Farron Cousins6428 at http://www.desmogblog.com